I always loved playing as a Barbarian. I keep telling myself that I like playing as a Caster of some sort, but really I had the most fun in Diablo 2 playing as the Barbarian. I can already tell that I'm going to be putting all my points into Leap.

From my experience now with the New Battle.net, I've noticed there don't seem to be any chatrooms, per se, as with the "old" bnet. There's effectively group chat once you invite folks to form a group. But I remember a lot of times with Diablo I and II just quickly creating a chatroom and meeting there.

So I'm just curious how Diablo III will work in the new b.net. Overall I like the new bnet a lot as an interface, though I remain unable to get voice chat to work (something several of us here are struggling with, even after following port following directions), but that's a whole thread in itself.

From my experience now with the New Battle.net, I've noticed there don't seem to be any chatrooms, per se, as with the "old" bnet. There's effectively group chat once you invite folks to form a group. But I remember a lot of times with Diablo I and II just quickly creating a chatroom and meeting there.

So I'm just curious how Diablo III will work in the new b.net. Overall I like the new bnet a lot as an interface, though I remain unable to get voice chat to work (something several of us here are struggling with, even after following port following directions), but that's a whole thread in itself.

They are adding chatrooms to Bnet in a patch shortly, according to Blizz.

So I'm just curious how Diablo III will work in the new b.net. Overall I like the new bnet a lot as an interface, though I remain unable to get voice chat to work (something several of us here are struggling with, even after following port following directions), but that's a whole thread in itself.

By the time Diablo 3 comes out, we'll all have chips implanted in our brains that allow instantaneous communication with anyone on Earth, so it's a moot point

Logged

"Why did the chicken cross the Mobius strip? To get to the same side." - The Big Bang Theory

I think you mean 2 years, in keeping with the "new series entry every 12 years" Blizzard tradition.

Diablo II (just 4 years after Diablo) messed up my expectations there. I thought by now we'd be waiting for Diablo VI...

once they went with wow, they didn't need to worry about long dev times draining the coffers. and they know that despite how long a game takes to come out, we'll still buy it by the bucketload, as seen by sc2's player population.

Uh yeah, you can. Blizzard's main benefit is budget, to be frank. Which allows them to take time. But, it also allows them to be slow so that they can make sure to pace out their releases.

Thankfully, the devs at Blizzard are all top notch and will make ample good use of the extra time. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the sole reason why Diablo 3 isn't coming out this year is because they're making it better.

Starcraft 2 needs time to mature, and it also works are a preparation for bnet 2.

Uh yeah, you can. Blizzard's main benefit is budget, to be frank. Which allows them to take time. But, it also allows them to be slow so that they can make sure to pace out their releases.

Thankfully, the devs at Blizzard are all top notch and will make ample good use of the extra time. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking the sole reason why Diablo 3 isn't coming out this year is because they're making it better.

Starcraft 2 needs time to mature, and it also works are a preparation for bnet 2.

Because every developer that is treated with a generous development cycle puts out a good game, right? Alan Wake took 5 years to make, but you won't see it walking away with any GOTY awards. Whether or not Diablo 3 isn't out yet because they are still working on it or they don't want to release it yet is up for speculation.

And what would you compare Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft to, just out of curiosity?

Because every developer that is treated with a generous development cycle puts out a good game, right? Alan Wake took 5 years to make, but you won't see it walking away with any GOTY awards. Whether or not Diablo 3 isn't out yet because they are still working on it or they don't want to release it yet is up for speculation.

And what would you compare Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft to, just out of curiosity?

All other RTS games, and all other MMOs. After all, that's how you make comparisons.

Get your panties unbunched. Not every developer can make the kind of polished games Blizzard can for the same time. But, a great many studios, given the same time and budget as Blizzard games, would produce product to the same quality.

Oh and Alan Wake is a damn fine game, not to mention it's a way more complex game that a lot of what Blizzard puts out. One of the reasons why Blizzard is able to do what it does is that, frankly, they keep their games pretty simple in terms of mechanics.

Because every developer that is treated with a generous development cycle puts out a good game, right? Alan Wake took 5 years to make, but you won't see it walking away with any GOTY awards. Whether or not Diablo 3 isn't out yet because they are still working on it or they don't want to release it yet is up for speculation.

And what would you compare Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft to, just out of curiosity?

All other RTS games, and all other MMOs. After all, that's how you make comparisons.

Get your panties unbunched. Not every developer can make the kind of polished games Blizzard can for the same time. But, a great many studios, given the same time and budget as Blizzard games, would produce product to the same quality.

Oh and Alan Wake is a damn fine game, not to mention it's a way more complex game that a lot of what Blizzard puts out. One of the reasons why Blizzard is able to do what it does is that, frankly, they keep their games pretty simple in terms of mechanics.

Really? How are the mechanics of WoW or SC2 more simple than those of Alan Wake? Haven't played Alan Wake, so don't know what complex mechanics you are talking about.

Because every developer that is treated with a generous development cycle puts out a good game, right? Alan Wake took 5 years to make, but you won't see it walking away with any GOTY awards. Whether or not Diablo 3 isn't out yet because they are still working on it or they don't want to release it yet is up for speculation.

And what would you compare Starcraft 2 and World of Warcraft to, just out of curiosity?

All other RTS games, and all other MMOs. After all, that's how you make comparisons.

Get your panties unbunched. Not every developer can make the kind of polished games Blizzard can for the same time. But, a great many studios, given the same time and budget as Blizzard games, would produce product to the same quality.

Oh and Alan Wake is a damn fine game, not to mention it's a way more complex game that a lot of what Blizzard puts out. One of the reasons why Blizzard is able to do what it does is that, frankly, they keep their games pretty simple in terms of mechanics.

Really? How are the mechanics of WoW or SC2 more simple than those of Alan Wake. Haven't play Alan Wake, so don't know what complex mechanics you are talking about.

Ale

Alan Wake more complex than what Blizzard puts out? In what aspect is Alan Wake more complex than Starcraft 2 (apples to oranges, I know), the in-depth single-player and multiplayer package with a robust interface allowing you to compete with people online, stay in touch with your friends, as well as a detailed profile that tracks all your statistics, not to mention high-quality FMV movies and a soundtrack deemed worthy enough to have its own separate release? No other RTS even does that, and gameplay-wise I don't find it to be as simplified as some people make it out to be.

We can debate opinions all we want, but you cant argue with the numbers. Both in terms of sales and in terms of how long people tend to play each Blizzard game. People (correction, a LOT of people, not just some scant minority) play Blizzard's games for a decade... How many games make people do that?

Quite a few apparently, considering how many games people pull out and replay. I bet you can name a few of your own that aren't Blizzard games. Not to mention many games are played for very long times. But even starcraft 2 petered out in the US after some time, it's mainly been stories from Korea. The two main games Blizzard has kept up, WoW and Diablo 2 tend to be the kind of game people are willing to grind over and over like slot machines.

Pulling the numbers card eh? There's plenty of games that sell like hotcakes, for much the same reasons of familiarity, and the polish that can come from redoing basically the same things over and over. Madden and Pokemon come to mind.

The core complay elements, engine, and story elements are all most complex than SC2. That's both a good and bad thing, but Blizzard makes keeps the core mechanics pretty simple, then iterate on top of that. They tend to keep viewpoints overhead, cutting down on a lot of extra work they'd have to do for that final 10% needed to make things look good in the third OTS, or first person views, not that their games need that viewpoint. There's not much camera control, no physics or complex interactions to deal with, even the AI can be kept simple because of how simple the interactions are. But there's a bit of a reason why Ghost didn't go as well as they'd planned and had it farmed off then cancelled. Likewise, their stories are predictable and cliche, also a good and bad thing since you'll get pretty much what you're looking for.

You seem to think I don't like, or appreciate Blizzard games. I do, but they're not the holy messiah of games just like Valve isn't, or Apple isn't for hardware. I'm of the opinion that Blizzard is where it is due to first timing, then a good application of all its resources and talent gained from that. They produce great games overall, but there's many out there that could do the same or better with the budget.

Blizzard's innovation lies in making simple ideas more fun for more people.

Why do you guys insist on using the word "simple"? What is so simple about Starcraft 2 compared to the average RTS, or World of Warcraft to the average MMO? Sure, there are more complex games that exist , but they typically are not as fun. I know Relic's games are exceptions. It's not like it would be beyond Blizzard to make the most advanced, complicated RTS game ever conceived, but I believe they make the concious decision to cut out any elements of the gameplay that begins to make the game less fun to play.

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm playing SC2 online against a good player the game seems anything BUT simple.

Blizzard's innovation lies in making simple ideas more fun for more people.

Why do you guys insist on using the word "simple"? What is so simple about Starcraft 2 compared to the average RTS, or World of Warcraft to the average MMO? Sure, there are more complex games that exist , but they typically are not as fun. I know Relic's games are exceptions. It's not like it would be beyond Blizzard to make the most advanced, complicated RTS game ever conceived, but I believe they make the concious decision to cut out any elements of the gameplay that begins to make the game less fun to play.

Maybe it's just me, but when I'm playing SC2 online against a good player the game seems anything BUT simple.

Starcraft 2 can be hard to win, but the gameplay is incredibly simple, unoriginal and kind of boring. You can't get much more basic in a RTS.

Blizzard's innovation lies in making simple ideas more fun for more people.

i'm a huge blizzard fanboy and even i recognized this years ago. they don't really revolutionize things, they just evolve them. they take the good bits and make them better. i'm totally fine with this. there's hasn't been one blizzard game i haven't enjoyed yet. the fact that blizzard is one of the few companies out there that can make a game so good and with hardly any bugs at launch says much more than trying to completely change everything. the thing you gotta recognize is that this also forces everyone else to change as well. look at all the wow clones, but how many are actually fun? answer, zero.

as much as we all joke about decades between launches, gotta admit. their games are more than worth the wait.

I say simple primarily because a lot of their ideas are core concepts that multiple developers have arrived at independently or borrowed because they work so well. It's not a bash against the intelligence level required to understand them.

There were very few things in WoW that were unique to MMOs. What was unique is in the way Blizzard implemented them.

Ex: Questing. There were quests in MMOs long before WoW, but WoW was the first MMO to make questing a primary way of earning XP versus grinding mobs. They took a simple concept (questing) and figured out how to make it more fun (make quests reward XP and items) for more people (solo players, those who didn't like grinding mobs).

Ex: Questing. There were quests in MMOs long before WoW, but WoW was the first MMO to make questing a primary way of earning XP versus grinding mobs. They took a simple concept (questing) and figured out how to make it more fun (make quests reward XP and items) for more people (solo players, those who didn't like grinding mobs).

That's an idea they ripped off from Anarchy Online and other MMOs that were trending towards being "quest focused" at the time. Even EQ2 which came out about the same time as WoW was quest centric. Although, you could argue that WoW was the most soloable of all the MMOs at the time.

While I've bought and enjoyed every Blizzard RTS, I think that is their most generic product line. SC2 just confirms how little they are willing to change since Warcraft 1.

Diablo on the other hand is brilliant and the gameplay is fresh and original. I never played a rogue-like before but I doubt that I would have got the same enjoyment out of Rogue as I did the first time I played the Diablo 1 demo. And D2 is just the best game of the genre bar none.